Tobias Haller writes on his excellent blog that he thinks the Anglican Covenant would be worthy in the form of the St. Andrew's Draft if the appendix and section 3.2.5 were simply removed altogether.
I agree.
In honor of the Holy Trinity which is all the communion that there will be one day when all things are taken into the very life of God in theosis - I have clipped out those silly bits and published the 'Trinity' version of the Anglican Covenant.
If you read it imagining that this were it -- the total and final 'covenant' -- with no secret or appendaged bits lurking behind it with 'teeth' -- it's very appealing.
See it here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
As a lay deputy to GC2009, I have responded to the President of the House of Deputies request to share with my bishop and fellow deputies my ow analysis and reflections on the St. Andrews Draft Covenant. On the whole I agree with you, Fr. Greg, and Fr. Tobias, as to the worthiness of this second draft, though there are a few places in my view that might be revised toward further improvement. In my written remarks, I quoted Fr. Tobias, and after seeing your posting, added a reference to it and the link to your version with the deletion.
The Draft Appendix is the tail that wags this dog, and the tail should best be cut off. Why should a Covenant that calls for the highest possible degree of communion (3.2.6), provide an "out"? Every biblical covenant I know of has remained in force, because God is faithful. A Covenant that contains the seeds of removal of those who commit to it is unbiblical, in my view. If given our present realities, some structure of arbitrarion or process to resolve complaints is necessary, why make it part of the Covenant? Why not make it a separate work?
I agree with you Robert.
A further thought. By separating any process for resolution of disagreements from the Covenant, it would be much easier, once an agreed upon set of procedures has been invoked and tested in actual situations, to review and revise said procedures in order to improve them without havng to bring the whole Covenant forward again for another vote.
The ACC could figure out that process later.
Thank you Fr Greg. I very much enjoyed reading your Trinity version, and it strikes me again how well it reads with that one section removed -- one would hardly know any surgery had been done!
Blessings, and let's hope this message gets through. My own GC deputation is taking a similar approach...
Post a Comment